sample_case

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already establish that this is a non-destructive, closed-world write. The description adds genuinely non-obvious behavioral facts the annotations lack: no model calls are made and no automatic approval step occurs, plus the data is clearly labeled as fictional. It stops short of saying what state is created or whether resuming mutates an existing sample.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Two short sentences with the action front-loaded and the non-obvious caveats ('no model calls or automatic approvals') packed into a single clause. Every word carries information; no filler.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a zero-parameter, no-output-schema tool the description covers what it does and the two most surprising behavioral traits. It omits what 'resume' targets and what the created sample contains, but the complexity is low enough that these are minor gaps.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

The tool takes zero parameters, so the baseline is 4; there is nothing for the description to disambiguate. The schema is empty with 100% coverage, so no compensating detail is needed.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description gives a specific verb pair ('create or resume') and a concrete resource ('clearly labeled fictional sample'), so the agent knows this seeds or reopens sample data. It does not name or contrast against any sibling (e.g., project_create, case_overview), so differentiation is left to inference.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

There is no statement of when to pick this tool over siblings like project_create or case_overview, nor any prerequisites or conditions. The dual 'create or resume' mode hints at two call contexts but never explains which one applies.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.